Via John Lott, apparently the Finns were under quite a bit of international pressure to change it’s “lax” gun laws:
International gun control activists have urged the Finns to rethink their laws in the wake of Wednesday’s tragedy.
Finns are sensitive to their international image, and often complain their country is portrayed as a gloomy northern outpost of Europe, where long dark winters drive people to binge drinking, suicide or random outbursts of violence.
Sensitive, but they are agreeing to make this change in their law:
The government said Friday it would raise the minimum age for buying guns from 15 to 18, but insisted there was no need for sweeping changes to gun laws shaped by deep-rooted traditions of hunting in the sub-Arctic wilderness.
Good for them for pissing on Rebecca Peters and her group’s demands. But consider that Finland’s gun laws are still stricter than ours:
“The application was rejected because a 9 mm gun is considered too powerful … for target practice shooting,” Detective Superintendent Tero Haapala told The Associated Press. “He was recommended to get a .22-caliber gun.”
After Wednesday’s shooting drew international attention to Finland’s gun culture, the Interior Ministry issued a statement saying firearm sales were “strictly controlled.”
Before granting a weapons permit, police “assess the applicant’s suitability to posses a firearm, his or her way of life, behavior and possible mental health problems,” the statement said. Applicants must prove also they have a legitimate need for a gun, such as hunting or target practice. Self-defense is not a valid reason.
Sounds pretty strict to me, and yet:
Gun control activists said the shooting at the Jokela High School in Tuusula, some 30 miles north of Helsinki, proved the need for stricter gun laws in Finland.
“Compared to other European countries, Finland has a serious gun problem,” said Rebecca Peters, director of the London-based International Action Network on Small Arms.
Not enough. We must not give an inch to these people. They won’t stop until they all go under the saw. If Paul Helmks wants to find ways to work with the NRA, since his organization isn’t about banning guns and all, why doesn’t he start by denouncing this international gun ban movement led by Rebecca Peters?
More I more I see groups like the Brady Bunch and IANSA as ghouls that crawl out of the ground to feed on the corpses of victims. W/I hours of the VT shooting, Sarah was sending out e-mails asking for $32 to combat guns. Now Rebecca opens her Soros funded mouth to call for more bans in Finland before the bodies are even cold.
So they’re going after Finland. Guess I won’t be able to attend (just to watch) the Lapua Sniper Competition in my lifetime if IANSA keeps up with the gun control crap. I’m sure Czech(however you spell it) will be next. Surprised they didn’t mention their laws:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7083629.stm
I’d love to see what they would have to say about Pakistan. They’d probably sweep this video under the rug since it backs up the argument that a ban on firearms would never work like we’ve all said before. Then again I think journalists are banned from this location:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9xf62PKC5M
*sigh* Why is it that “self defense” is never a sufficient reason to possess an item that makes such a concept so very much easier for the user? It is obvious that lawbreakers will even operate inside the law to procure their firearms… why should the law-abiders not have equivalent means to fight against them, should the situation call for it?
““Compared to other European countries, Finland has a serious gun problem,†said Rebecca Peters”
It does seem that the biggest anti-gun advocates are from English speaking countries. I wonder why?
It is ironic that the countries that were at the forefront of the push for more freedom and liberty in the world now seem to be at the forefront of the drive for a more authoritarian, fascist world.